Politico's Thrush stumbles on victory lap
January 27, 2009 11:06 am ET by Jamison Foser
Glenn Thrush seems to think his post yesterday about Nancy Pelosi & family planning funds is vindicated by reports that House Democrats may strip those funds from their stimulus package.
It isn't.
Here's Thrush today:
We took some heat yesterday for suggesting Nancy Pelosi needed to do something to stem political damage from GOP attacks on the inclusion of contraceptive cash in the stimulus.
Apparently she has -- at the behest of President Obama.
Actually, Thrush "took some heat" for baselessly repeating bogus GOP spin, and falsely suggesting that public support for contraception funding is unpopular.
Most notably, Thrush suggested supporting funding for contraceptives would make Pelosi look like a "Bay area liberal" with a "far left agenda." In fact, backing public funding for contraceptives isn't a "far-left" position, as Thrush later acknowledged. It is a position that enjoys overwhelming public support. So overwhelming that opposing such funding could probably be described as a "far-right" position.
Thrush's post yesterday was reminiscent of the first media reports during the Terry Schiavo controversy - the ones that contained the baseless speculation that the "wedge issue" would play to the GOP's benefit. But it didn't: the American public isn't where the conservatives think they are - or where reporters think they are. That's been true for quite some time.
The fact that House Democrats may drop funding for contraceptives from their bill doesn't vindicate Thrush's lazy reporting. If it says anything at all about that reporting, it is that the credulous repetition of false right-wing spin can have an effect on public policy debates. That shouldn't be something to be proud of; it should be a reminder that reporters have a responsibility to carefully and factually assess spin - and their own assumptions - before they write their articles.
It says that the Democratic delegation in the House has leadership issues, and for some time now.
The Office of Speaker of the House, and that of Majority Leader (and for that matter, the Committee Chairmanships also), are all too important to the American People, to award those leadership position (and Committee Chairs) based simply on whoever has seniority, or otherwise whoever is standing next in line.
It's terribly counterproductive: and the more that the times require ability and merit (more merit than simply being there longer than others, or simply being next in line), the more the times require real ability and qualified merit (as the times do now), then the more the American People are disserved, by those all-important Congressional leadership positions and Committee Chairmanships being awrded based upon grey hair, wrinkles, and a kind of ambitious patience that makes one wait in line long enough until it's finally your turn to lead.
And it's too bad for us.
Imagine for a moment now (please and truly, imagine this now): Imagine that the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee were chosen not for his grey hair and wrinkles and just being next in line, but were chosen for having law enforcement experience, particularly prosecutorial experience, and investigative experience, even the experience of conducting an inquiry (criminal or not), perhaps involving stubborn or hostile witnesses or other targets (criminal or not)...
Wouldn't our House Judiciary Committee be a more effective instrument of our Congress, if it's Chairman were selected from among the several former U.S. Attorneys and even States Attorney Generals in the Democratic Congressional delegation?
I mean would karl rove and other under-Bushies just thumb their noses at that Committee, if an actual prosecutor Chaired it?
I mean, just how serious and determined does "there's change in D.C., and it's time to talk" sound to karl rove et al, when it comes from a man who's only qualification to Chair that all-important House Judiciary Committee, is that he's old and grey? A man that karl and company have already defied and blown off?
It's too bad for us: we get the honor of honoring old men (and women) with Congressional leadership positions, but we get also in the bargain, ineffective investigations and weak oversight of the corrupted (even criminal) elements of our Federal Government...
Oh yeah, and we get CONTRACEPTIVES and CONTRACEPTION also: at a time like this, is that what we need?
Good post and points all Dem. I think this a glaring example of why we really need effective term limits. Even if it meant lengthening terms to say eight years for the Senate and four years for the House.
I would also not be opposed to give the POTUS a five year term. In today's almost non stop campaign cycles the POTUS has a two year window to be effective before the chickens come home to roost (to borrow a line) and political capital has to spent with an eye on the next campaign.
Are you stalking me today! ;0
Read it again...I'm saying I'd be for 8yr terms for the Senate...
We do not need "term limits": "term limits" are pure and simple nothing less than an infringement of your right to vote for whomever you want... it's not "terms" that are limited, but you, and your vote... you are prohibited from perhaps choosing the most quailified expert (and experienced) person for Office, by this UNDEMOCRATIC concept called "term limits" (and in the House, Rep. Serrano (D-NY) has introduced H.J.Res.5, to repeal the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, thereby restoring the voting right to us that was taken away by that Amendment, the right to choose whomever we like as our President).
The problem that I described above, which I consider very real and serious too, has everything to do with how we choose Congressional leadership positions (especially Committee Chairs), and nothing to do with "term limits": let our many Reps and Senators be as creaky old and senior and many-termed as we and they like, but let us never confuse seniority for ability, or confuse the patience to hang around until it's their turn for merit... these leadership positions (and Chairs), they are effectively National Offices: they are as important and sometimes more important and powerful, than the Presidency itself... do we choose our President for his or her seniority? Do we choose them merely because they are next in line for the job?
No we do not. We seek ability and merit for the Office, as much as we can find among those who will petition for it (and we search oftentimes even farther, almost to the point of wanting to draft the unwilling, who for whatever reason do not petition for the Office, despite their great qualifications and abilities)...
Anyway, it's flat out dumb and counter-productive I say, to award such important leadership positions and Committee Chairs, based upon things we weigh not, when we weigh our choice for President (again, things like seniority and happening to be next in line).
And as for the most UNDEMOCRATIC concept of "term limits" that you seem to like?
If you wish to limit your own right to vote, and refuse to return any particular President to that Office, then do so: but don't advocate limiting my right to vote, thanks just the same...
You must be a Republican, seeing as how that UNDEMOCRATIC 22nd Amendment scheme to limit voter's rights was their idea in the first place, and continues to be forwarded to this day by them...
Vote YES on H.J.Res.5, to repeal the 22nd Amendment and restore the American People's right to vote for who they like as their President!
(And House and Senate Members: STOP thinking that seniority and simply standing next in line, are any real qualification to the all-important leadership positions in Congress, and to Committee Chairmanships!)
The last paragraph of this blog post is pretty funny.
Can Democrats ever grow a pair or are they still suffering from battered wife syndrome? The whole country voted for you, you won huge, I guess you should have taken a few leadership classes before accepting victory.
Blaming the media for Democratic decision-making is really giving Dems an excuse they don't deserve. Stop with the excuses!!!
With the ascension of the One only a week ago, the masses have already mobilized in advancing the cause. There is no reason why we shouldn’t pass laws that prohibit anyone from publicly or privately opposing the One, because to oppose Him is to oppose the Almighty himself. The archaic, decrepit document called the Constitution may pose a challenge to passing such laws, but it would only present a challenge if we read it literally. Fear not denizens of the collective consciousness, we are fortunate to have been liberated from the shackles of absolutism – what a barbaric notion? We have evolved; therefore, everything is relative and open to interpretation. In our post-modern times, the Constitution’s value lies only in its ink and paper, not in its meaning, for its meaning is perpetually evolving. After all why should we conform to the ramblings of the privileged white men who originally inked this document, history or revisionist history has proven that anything created by privileged white men must be regarded with grave skepticism. I follow this principle religiously, although on occasion it proves inconvenient and extremely complex for I am a white man – I’m not privileged but meeting only one criterion is sufficient. Yes, of course I’m immensely ashamed of my skin color because I know its diabolical history and the anguish it has caused to the peaceful people of the sun. It matters not at all that I’m a son of immigrants who fled Eastern European’s socialism in 1989 and that I’m conveniently categorized as a Caucasian on all the documents. My parents were deceived by the promise of a democratic and capitalist America, abandoning the moral riches that only socialism can provide. I recall with fondness how we were all poor but happy but now we are wealthy and hopelessly despondent. I’m not proud that I have accumulated wealth while so many in the world go hungry every day. With immeasurable anticipation, I await the day that my ill-gotten wealth will be justly distributed to the less fortunate in our collective consciousness.
There’s no sense in denying that G-d chosen the bastard child to lead us all to salvation and those who stand in the way, such as Limbaugh, must be dealt with appropriately. What magnificent symbolism and irony to have a bastard child lead a society that has victimized his people for so long? Let us look to history to aide us in dealing with those who oppose the "One" - the techniques of the esteemed Vladimir Ilych comes to mind and where there is Vladimir Ilych the beloved Yoska Djugashvili is not far ahead (or, as you faithful adherents of the cause know him as Joseph Stalin). Or perhaps we should emulate the techniques of the valiant and just Che, perhaps Mao or maybe Castro. Why limit ourselves to following the techniques of only one of these revered man – why not follow them all. The pen (or the keyboard) and access to the airwaves gives too much power to noncompliant elements, therefore meticulous control of both medias must be a high priority. Anything widely broadcast or disseminated in print must have the right value and teach the masses wrong from right. Media that doesn’t serve that purpose must be eliminated directly or through back channel means. I know there are those that will do all in their power to undermine the One, we must not rest until all those nefarious elements are identified by name and publicly prosecuted to discourage the mere idea of standing in the path of change that we need. With time, religion will become obsolete and unnecessary, replaced by our devout adherence to His cause for there could be no higher calling than to serve the One. Lest you forget, this new dawn cannot arrive if we cling to passé dogmas and principles that were created by the privileged few. I see no better way to begin our journey to salvation than by publicly castigating and prosecuting Limbaugh and his type. Their stubborn clinging to the principles of the original constitution and the subversive dogmas of Judeo-Christianity cannot be tolerated in the new world that the One will create for us.
Although I’m overcome with elation like everyone else who participated in the coronation of the One, I cannot exorcize myself of an intractable feeling of sadness that has unnoticeably crept into my soul, sitting there like a stubborn child refusing to do its parent’s bidding. How can anyone feel sadness at a time like this – why do I not particularly feel proud? Didn’t the One’s spouse, who I will call the Two, proclaim that she is finally proud of this country and therefore we all should be proud as well – so what is the meaning of this sadness? Perhaps I need re-education that will be provided in the camps administered by the Civilian Task Force.
Long live the One….Viva Numero Uno